In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.

Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

The irony of this is that Rice may well have been used as a patsy, unaware that she was sent out to spin a misleading tale. My colleague Dana Milbank recounts Rice’s long-standing inability to get along with others and to be circumspect in her pronouncements:

It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning. . . . Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.

Frankly the same could be said of many national security positions at this point. The American people made their choice in November on the president, but it now appears they were duped regarding the real facts concerning Benghazi. What are we going to do about that?

Getting all your info only from news sites that reinforce your world view is not a good thing, conservative or liberal. (see the presidential election)

I've never seen a part of the media so in the tank for one candidate in my life, even to the point of not covering Benghazi so they don't hurt his election chances. They chose holding on to their liberal power instead of reporting what was right.

I've never seen a part of the media so in the tank for one candidate in my life, even to the point of not covering Benghazi so they don't hurt his election chances. They chose holding on to their liberal power instead of reporting what was right.

TGI

It's the same from both sides though, right? There are liberal news sources that will sweep things under the rug to make Obama look better. There are also conservative sources that hate Obama with a passion, and want to find any dirt they can legit or not. If there is really something to a story it'll find it's way to the surface. If the MSM thinks something isn't a big deal you won't hear too much about it other than from partisan sources.

It's the same from both sides though, right? There are liberal news sources that will sweep things under the rug to make Obama look better. There are also conservative sources that hate Obama with a passion, and want to find any dirt they can legit or not. If there is really something to a story it'll find it's way to the surface. If the MSM thinks something isn't a big deal you won't hear too much about it other than from partisan sources.

That's understandable but Americans died and it's appearing more and more there was much incompetence from this administration before, during, and after. The liberal media cared barely to cover any of this as to not hurt his election chances. I know you have a hard time grasping how messed up that was.

If you truly want to catch up, fine but if you are just trying to be an ass because there are plenty of threads here on Benghazi to inform yourself.

With what Petraeus said yesterday and this report above, this absolutely had nothing to do with a video that many in his administration tried to pull off on the American people for almost 2 weeks. There is much more to this before, during, and after the event that shows much incompetence from this administration.

TGI

I know the story and what happened. I am not understanding what he lied about.

But someone has put it better than I can so point to which ones you agree with:

1. Obama sympathizes with terrorists and subscribes completely to the left-wing “blow-back” theory where Americans are morally culpable for terrorist attacks by courageous downtrodden Muslims. He is therefore predisposed to cover-up attacks on America. Partly because he blames America, and partly because he fears more blow-back. He is a radical, a coward, and a liar.

2. Obama tried to hide the terrorism aspect because he thought that a terrorist attack would hurt him in the polls. Obama’s political team is under the impression that one-off terrorist attacks produce a “rally AGAINST the flag” effect. The Commander in Chief is significantly weakened by these events, as we saw in the 3rd debate when Romney dressed down Obama, who cowered in the corner and wept on TV. David Axelrod feared that Obama’s poll numbers would collapse if the public saw him pounding his chest about murderers for a month. In order to avoid this outcome, he hatched a brilliant plan to increase his political fortunes: to cover up the terrorist attack for two weeks before eventually revealing it! When the GOP hauls David Axelrod in front of Congress, we’ll all learn more about the brilliant political plan that single-highhandedly reelected Obama.

3. Obama’s communications team doesn’t share information with public surrogates in a timely or efficient manner. This is worse than Watergate!

4. During the attack on Benghazi, Obama ignored a plea for help and denied assistance to the consulate. Because he’s a craven monster who sympathizes with violent murderers.

I know the story and what happened. I am not understanding what he lied about.

But someone has put it better than I can so point to which ones you agree with:

1. Obama sympathizes with terrorists and subscribes completely to the left-wing “blow-back” theory where Americans are morally culpable for terrorist attacks by courageous downtrodden Muslims. He is therefore predisposed to cover-up attacks on America. Partly because he blames America, and partly because he fears more blow-back. He is a radical, a coward, and a liar.

2. Obama tried to hide the terrorism aspect because he thought that a terrorist attack would hurt him in the polls. Obama’s political team is under the impression that one-off terrorist attacks produce a “rally AGAINST the flag” effect. The Commander in Chief is significantly weakened by these events, as we saw in the 3rd debate when Romney dressed down Obama, who cowered in the corner and wept on TV. David Axelrod feared that Obama’s poll numbers would collapse if the public saw him pounding his chest about murderers for a month. In order to avoid this outcome, he hatched a brilliant plan to increase his political fortunes: to cover up the terrorist attack for two weeks before eventually revealing it! When the GOP hauls David Axelrod in front of Congress, we’ll all learn more about the brilliant political plan that single-highhandedly reelected Obama.

3. Obama’s communications team doesn’t share information with public surrogates in a timely or efficient manner. This is worse than Watergate!

4. During the attack on Benghazi, Obama ignored a plea for help and denied assistance to the consulate. Because he’s a craven monster who sympathizes with violent murderers.

So now the word "lie" is the new "is".

Now that we know more, here is the timeline with all the lies about the video by many in the administration. The only thing we didn't know is when the president knew and this report in the OP says he knew well before he sent the "video" narrative out.

So now the new conspiracy theory since Rice is off the hook because Patreaus and other intel people confirmed they gave her the talking points because they didn't want to tip off anybody is that the POTUS should have tipped off the terrorists?

Now that we know more, here is the timeline with all the lies about the video by many in the administration. The only thing we didn't know is when the president knew and this report in the OP says he knew well before he sent the "video" narrative out.